Court emphasizes appealability of final assessment orders, directs adherence to statutory remedies. Routine intervention discouraged.

The court emphasized the appealability of final assessment orders and the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to Writ Petitions. It directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a specified period and instructed the appellate authority to consider the appeal expeditiously. The court highlighted that routine intervention in departmental proceedings is discouraged, and Writ Petitions should be exceptions granted only in cases of imminent threat or gross injustice. The judgment underscored the significance of following statutory procedures to reach finality in resolving disputes and discouraged filing Writ Petitions solely based on delay.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to revision orders passed by Assistant Commissioner, applicability of previous court order, appealability of final assessment orders, importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Revision Orders: The Writ Petitions challenge the revision orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The court noted that a previous order directed the Commissioner to nominate an Officer to inquire into the matter and pass an appropriate order. However, the present Writ Petitions challenge the final assessment orders, not the revision notices. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is deemed inapplicable as the present challenge pertains to final revision orders issued.

2. Appealability of Final Assessment Orders: The court emphasized that final assessment orders are appealable. Multiplicity of litigation to avoid addressing issues promptly is discouraged. The procedures outlined by the law must be strictly followed to reach finality in resolving disputes. Routine intervention in departmental proceedings is not desirable unless there are exceptional circumstances like lack of jurisdiction or malafides.

3. Importance of Exhausting Statutory Remedies: The court highlighted the significance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to Writ Petitions. Appellate authorities are crucial as final fact-finding bodies. Preferring an appeal is the norm, and Writ Petitions should be exceptions granted only in cases of imminent threat or gross injustice. Mere violation of natural justice principles is insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy.

4. Judicial Review and Appellate Authorities: The power of judicial review under Article 226 is to scrutinize the decision-making process, not the decision itself. Appellate forums are final fact-finding bodies possessing expertise in specific fields. The High Court should not conduct a detailed inquiry based solely on affidavits; the importance of fact-finding by appellate forums is paramount for dispensing complete justice.

5. Delay as Ground for Writ Petition: The court acknowledged delay as a valid ground for entertaining a Writ Petition. Filing Writ Petitions without exhausting statutory remedies is on the rise, often to avoid pre-deposits in appeals or due to perceived time-consuming nature of appellate remedies.

In conclusion, the court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent authority within a specified period, ensuring compliance with Acts and Rules. The appellate authority was instructed to consider the appeal expeditiously, providing an opportunity for all concerned parties. The Writ Petitions were disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court.

---